Vigorito (2008) Play the Semi-Slav in game 38, pages 202-208, follows

Ivanchuk - Korneev, Barcelona 2006
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 h6 8.Bd2 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Be2 Bb7 11.e4 Be7 12.Rc1 (12.g5 Vigorito) 12...c5 13.e5 Nd5 14.Nxb5 O-O 15.dxc5 Bxc5 16.O-O Rc8 17.Qb1 Ne7 18.Bf4 Ng6 19.Bg3 Ndxe5 20.Nxe5 Nxe5 21.Rfd1 Qf6 22.Nd6 Bxd6 23.Rxd6 Nf3+ 24.Kf1 Be4 25.Qxe4 Rxc1+ 26.Bd1 Rd8 0-1

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1433660

Vigorito thoroughly analyzed alternatives for both sides. Although Vera's book is not in his bibliography on page 4, Vigorito does quote the Sargissian - Hillarp-Person game, as well as Vera's 13...c5 analysis.

I was trying to make a joke, but probably I am just not funny.

I didn't check in detail in the chesspublishing.com archives, although I am sure it's all covered there. But in the December 2015 update Max Illingworth had this to say:
Quote:

Lately at the top I think white plays other moves than 7.g4, like 7.b3 or 7.Be2. It may be that 7.g4 h6 is the reason, but I play the Slav rather than the Semi-Slav so I'm not sure.

Yes 7...h6 is solid. But your reply is hardly in the spirit of the thread!? Perhaps you can try SHOUTING with ALL CAPS or really grinding your points home with bold. Okay, maybe I'm being a little unfair and you are just taking a little while to get warmed up...

I have registered just to state clearly that the person calling himself "Klaus Junge" is definitely NOT the author of the Article(s) mentioned, mbecause I am manuel Gerardo Monasterio and I never entered to say anything here.Therefore, please be aware that that onbe is not me, I never behave in such a pretentious manner, it is not my style. Thank you! Anyone wanting to really contact to Manuel Ger5ardo Monasterio may do it so going to Facebook, there they will see me in real face. You will recognize me because I have dozens of GM's and IM's as friends.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4
e5 9. g5 Nd5 UP TO HERE THE GAME Shariyazdanov-Dreev  was equal to the previous Sasikiran-Dreev,
how do you know that Dreev is not goingto repeatr his play against Sasikiran????? It was Shariyazdanov that here did not allow Dreev to play the same line as in his game against Sasikiran, by playing A DIFFERENT 10th MOVE, namely   Bd2 (instead of Sasikiran's Ne4) How could a player repeat a line if his opponent diverges????????????? Your reasoning is impossible to follow.

You write:
"Anyway, believe me, Dreev will not play the same way again "

Why should I believe you?
The coach you mention is Dreev himself?
Or you are just quoting things that you hear from your coach? If you are so sure, it must be the case...

I said (and you quote me)
This is so unlikely that it os already on the verge of the hilarious, just see the statistics of every GREAT PLAYER (not you and me, please) of all times...If your statement could be true, the score for Black MUST be equal or so as the White score...Which OBVIOUSLY is not the case.

And you add in regard to my comment:

Well, I should ask other people who are activ in this forum, to comment this. Maybe they can convince you rather than me. I can just say that my chess coach, a GM  and certainly an opening expert among the grandmasters, has the same opinion like me

Yes, I repeat once more, White results are statistically significantly higher than Black's with the same player...
I will not try to challenge your Coach's competence and high stature, but not even Capablanca reincarnated
could be able to change the simple mathematical facts:

Kasparov statistics with White 80%
Kasparov statistics with Black 64%

Topalov with White 66%
Topalov with Black 53%

Anand with White 70%
Anand with Black 57%

Botvinnik with White 71%
Botvinnik with Black 63%

Karpov with White  72%
Karpov with Black   57%

Tal with White 70%
Tal with Black 59%

Petrosian with White 71%
Petrosian with Black 58%

Kortschnoj with White 68%
Kortschnoj with Black 58%

Should I continue?

Ti be fair, thre are some big exceptions, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, but these found themselves in an exceptional niche of time and strength among their contemporaries.

Ask your coach if he would play a match against a fellow GM at 10 games he playing all with Black..If the theoretical outcome is equal between White and Black he should have no problems...

And last, if you have a GM coach, why don't you ask him about the line against the Shabalov???? Are you kidding me???? Having that kind of help, you are asking us???? What are you? A masochist????

YOU WROTE; I dont consider that Black has an inferior game Your "improvement" 18...Sc5 "!" cannot be convincing, after 18.Rxd4 Nc5 19.Bxd5 d5x white's advantage is beyond any doubt due to black's bad bishop. 

As far as I can see you are direceted by an old frame of interpretation in these positions, I do not consider Black Bishop bad at all, and Black's position has enough potential strength....I could prove to you any time....But if you are going to play with your coach, I perhaps resign!

To contradict your
"I really feel sorry for you if you cannot bear criticism. Other people would be thankful for hints, e.g. the hint I gave you about the Bareev-Vallejo game.
Bot no word about that from your side .... "

You make me so dizzy with so many rave that I forgot to acknowledge that you have a point here, White seems to be better (even much better) indeed.

And about your suggested Bc7, it is indeed playable, I just don't like the attacking positions White may get there. I am not obliged to analyze any legal move in every position.

Your phrase: A bluff ?  What would you play after Nxg4 Rg1 then ?

Sounds undoubtedly denigrating about the line...

Bye

The amount of conceitness packed in your answer is just too much for me.

As I see, you seem to be the greatest world leading specialist in the Shabalov variation. Therefore, I just apologized! I was mistakenly driven because of your first emails asking for advice, As it is, your asked advice was for the world elite...Far, very far and out of my league.

Your only interest in on bragging about your own "drumms".
But you throw unsubstantiated propositions such as the preposteous: "By the way, Dreev did not repeat this line in the last two years, probably not without reason"

Refuting your lousy comment, Dreev DID play again the variation, but his opponent was the first one to change (yes, indeed, "huge databases" are useless if one does not research them properly...)

[Event "Aeroflot Open"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2006.02.12"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Shariyazdanov, A."]
[Black "Dreev, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2583"]
[BlackElo "2697"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[EventDate "2006.02.08"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2006.02.13"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4
e5 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd2 ( instead of Sasikiran's 10.Ne4) O-O 11. O-O-O exd4 12. Nxd4 Nb4 13. Qb1 Ne5 14. Be2 c5 15.
Nf5 c4 16. Nxd6 Ned3+ 17. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 18. Kc2 Qxd6 19. Be1 Bg4 20. Rd2 Bf3 0-1

Not only Mr.Dreev (according to your OPINION and ANALYSIS) is dumb enough to play the "risky" and perhaps "inferior" dxc4 line, his opponent (the low ranked Shariyazdanov... ) is an idiot enough to avoid the advantageous line that you proposed as an improvement in Sasokiran-Dreev...Perhaps they both have to read what you have to say about it...

To end this comedy, in 2007, Dreev -who (being such an ass) must have arrived to his level just by chance, DID also play the line that -again-according to your   ALLKNOWING WISDOM, is almost ridiculous, and this againt one of the experts in the Shabalov:

[Event "Chess Classic GM"]
[Site "Gausdal NOR"]
[Date "2007.04.20"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Krasenkow, M."]
[Black "Dreev, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2661"]
[BlackElo "2633"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "2007.04.18"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "NOR"]
[EventCategory "12"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2007.04.23"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Nxg4 (the move you condemn so much...) 8. Rg1
Qf6 9. Rxg4 Qxf3 10. Rxg7 Nf6 11. Rg5 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Qxe4 13. Qxe4 dxe4 14. Rh5
f6 15. Bg2 f5 16. f3 exf3 17. Bxf3 Bd7 18. Bd2 O-O-O 19. Bc3 Be8 20. Rh3 Rg8
21. Kf2 Bg6 22. Rg1 f4 23. exf4 Rgf8 24. Ke2 Rxf4 25. Bg4 Rdf8 26. Bxe6+ Kd8
27. Rg2 Re8 28. Re3 c5 29. dxc5 Bxc5 30. Re5 Bd6 31. Re3 Bc5 32. Re5 Bd6 33.
Re3 1/2-1/2

Now, I don't want to finish without pointing out that your "improvement" 18.Rxd4 (a "wonderful postional shot" that poor devil Sasikiran -another patzer- did also miss) does not, of course, lead to a better game for White that the one got in the game, because Black is not obliged to play your passive 18...Nb6, but the far more active 18...Nc5!

And, going back to another of your ill-founded affirmations, when you said before, trying to confront my:

"it is absolutely NORMAL for White to retain a small advantage in most openings" and your pedantic answer: 
"I must completely disagree with that statement. Most opening variations lead to complete equality"

This is so unlikely that it os already on the verge of the hilarious, just see the statistics of every GREAT PLAYER (not you and me, please) of all times...If your statement could be true, the score for Black MUST be equal or so as the White score...Which OBVIOUSLY is not the case.

I must finished now and for good. It is a sad thing to try to get some "ego busting" from abusing your fellow-"forumites". I do not have to tolerate more abuse from you.

If you consider my articles SO DAMN LOUSY, all you have to do is to stay away from the. Anyway, it is obvious that I cannot offer you nothing of use, why bother to answer to a patzer like me, anyway?

Have a good time.

Hi MNb, why don't you suggest some line that is of your interest, I would try to write something about it, according to Correspondence/email current practice.
It would be very interesting to get out of the route!
best wishes
PD:thank you very much for your kind words, it is not easy to please chess readers!!!
Of course, we have more questions than answers in chess, I least in my case! It is a matter of proposing interesing questions to keep going just an interesting research!

Markovich wrote on 06/12/07 at 20:30:29:

I'm not sure this is always true, exhibit A being the Najdorf, where I'm certainly not aware of any objective += for White. I would certainly say that the path to "=" is much narrower for Black in White's trying lines (6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 in particular) but that's about it.